Werewolf Lite Stats

[Thistletooth]

Those stats are fooling you, I have maybe 5 or 6 real victories. Others are, for example, cases where I have been subbed in at the last day of the game. I don't count it as victory if I vote once. And I believe that even then that number is too high.

Aye, these stats are misleading. Olaus really does suck.

...I mean, winning and losing isn't what makes a good WW player. My victory in Io! Io! Lukoi! wasn't much of a victory, and my defeat in (EDIT: no, that was Nielsen's) wasn't much of a defeat.

Still, it's interesting to see the stats. They should be expanded to include other things, like total number of games played, how often certain players are wolves, etc.

[Slinky]

Nice to see some statistics, though I am afraid you have just landed yourself an enormous shitload of work

[johho888]

We had thread where Ironhead kept up statistics and he made distinction between real and substitute victories, which was better system. Now your current stats give false impression that I am better player than I am in reality.

This thread which Quercus started contained the Ironhead statistics. Fortunately Quercus abandoned us and Ironhead's computer containing the statistics got fried just when the list looked as good as it ever will. I see no reason to start updating it again

[the_hdk]

Nice to see some statistics, though I am afraid you have just landed yourself an enormous shitload of work

heheh nah For now I have much free time so I don't care

@ Thistle I agree I already started with that but that's much work
so that could take a few weeks with my work rate

[White Daimon]

...I mean, winning and losing isn't what makes a good WW player. My victory in Io! Io! Lukoi! wasn't much of a victory, and my defeat in (EDIT: no, that was Nielsen's) wasn't much of a defeat.

I agree. Winning without having been a real part of the win isn´t a real win for me, and all three of my "wins" have been without any real help from my side. I did won in my very first game, but I had done nothing to make it happen. During the first 4 days or so, I was very quiet. Then I did some analysis and correctly pointed the finger at General Jac the wolf, but IIRC he was already scanned and a JL spokesperson came out shortly thereafter and denounced him. I then spent the next three days trying to get the JL spokesperson lynched I somehow won, but I had done nothing to aid in that victory. But perhaps I should get some credit for not getting myself killed dispite that little stunt

[jonti-h]

...I mean, winning and losing isn't what makes a good WW player. My victory in Io! Io! Lukoi! wasn't much of a victory, and my defeat in (EDIT: no, that was Nielsen's) wasn't much of a defeat.

That is indeed true. It is for example relatively easy to cruise to victory as a villager if you don't make yourself a target for noose or teeth, while not putting in much or any effort at all. A glorious defeat can however, be much more thrilling and much more worthwhile. Naming all the wolves in the village before getting eaten would be a good example of this, most recently done by Lemeard.

[jonti-h]

I agree. Winning without having been a real part of the win isn´t a real win for me, and all three of my "wins" have been without any real help from my side. I did won in my very first game, but I had done nothing to make it happen. During the first 4 days or so, I was very quiet. Then I did some analysis and correctly pointed the finger at General Jac the wolf, but IIRC he was already scanned and a JL spokesperson came out shortly thereafter and denounced him. I then spent the next three days trying to get the JL spokesperson lynched I somehow won, but I had done nothing to aid in that victory. But perhaps I should get some credit for not getting myself killed dispite that little stunt

I believe that JL spokesman was me, and the fact that you were not lynched was proof that bastard though I am, I do show mercy.

[Llywelyn]

Still, it's interesting to see the stats. They should be expanded to include other things, like total number of games played,

I'd say the biggie would be the number of times a player's side won. Regardless of his specific win %, anything above 50% of the norm would show someone useful for his team.

how often certain players are wolves, etc.

That would be kinda amusing, but it'd have to be GM specific to give any useful info, since the GMs should be randomizing everything anyway. But then, Opie is the only one who's GMed enough games to get past random chance. So it'd just be double-checking Opie's fairness

[likk9922]

That is indeed true. It is for example relatively easy to cruise to victory as a villager if you don't make yourself a target for noose or teeth, while not putting in much or any effort at all. A glorious defeat can however, be much more thrilling and much more worthwhile. Naming all the wolves in the village before getting eaten would be a good example of this, most recently done by Lemeard.

I cruise quite often.

But still, I'm ranked in the top ten.
EDIT: Wait, I'm eleven. Oh well, the below still applies.
I'm ahead of some people who I really respect in this game. Some players who are much, much better than me.

[von Loch Ness]

Werewolf Lite Games

* 4 wins:
o jonti-h VI, XI, XII, XV
o von Loch Ness VI, VII, XI, XII

jonti, I guess we fare well together
(or maybe i just didn't do abnormal things when i first started playing)

edit:

The Ironhead Quotient

1. johho888: 45.4
2. von Loch Ness: 45.4
3. jonti-h: 45.1

What does this distinction mean?
dammit... when did i lose my mojo?

[Rysz]

I'd say the biggie would be the number of times a player's side won. Regardless of his specific win %, anything above 50% of the norm would show someone useful for his team.

This.
Actually the difference between a personal victory and a team victory is the reason why some players tend to be quiet. Because current lite game proves it one more time: active players get wolf-killed, and/or village-lynched.

So some players will therefore be quiet and win because of that, while the better, more active players, die during the game, but still give the village enough clues to win it (hopefully)

[Freebot]

I can do another one after Freebot's. (He was in line, right?)

Actually, if the goodies win this game, I'll postone until it becomes clear whether the 15 players/3 wolves/1 seer/day (or equivalently 16 players/3 wolves/1 seer/night) is balanced. If balance is achieved, then I won't bother with it at all.

[Llywelyn]

Actually, if the goodies win this game, I'll postone until it becomes clear whether the 15 players/3 wolves/1 seer/day (or equivalently 16 players/3 wolves/1 seer/night) is balanced. If balance is achieved, then I won't bother with it at all.

Eh... don't we already have stats showing it's balanced?

Or do you want to join the campaign to bring back the sorc too?

[Freebot]

Eh... don't we already have stats showing it's balanced?

Or do you want to join the campaign to bring back the sorc too?

My direction for balancing is somewhat different. Are you saying you have stats for HDK's current setup?

[Llywelyn]

My direction for balancing is somewhat different.

Well, then, feel free to try your idea, too.

Personally, I would imagine that 2-wolf packs would be rather hard to pin down and a game with no seer would quickly degenerate into a pretty boring random/meta circular firing squad where no one has any information, no one can pretend to have any information, and the wolves' survival depends entirely upon luck.

But it couldn't hurt for variety.

Are you saying you have stats for HDK's current setup?

With an added sorc for the baddies, yes.

That would be another useful rubrik - win/loss by setup.

[Olaus Petrus]

My direction for balancing is somewhat different. Are you saying you have stats for HDK's current setup?

There are 8 previous games with that set up. 4 goodie and 4 baddie victories.

[jonti-h]

There are 8 previous games with that set up. 4 goodie and 4 baddie victories.

Sounds balanced to me

[the_hdk]

Sounds balanced to me

good

anyway about the stats I agree that they show a wrong picture but hey
in RL it's no different. Most of the time it's about the result not th road....


Also In todays game to win a player needs to find balance. Most vocal players get killed, I personally disapprove of that, but that's how it is. We can strive to change that by getting more vocal, but that will take time.
For now players who adapt to the new system win, like Slinky or Raczynski who are semi-active. but they do have 3 wins.

[jonti-h]

anyway about the stats I agree that they show a wrong picture but hey
in RL it's no different. Most of the time it's about the result not th road....

Yeah statistics are often used like a drunk uses a lamppost. For support rather than illumination

[Mr. G]

We need an update here